Back to Journals » Open Access Surgery » Volume 8

Ex vivo and in vivo evaluation of an ultrasonic device for precise dissection, coagulation, and transection

Authors Bertke BD, Scoggins P, Welling AL, Widenhouse T, Chen C, Kallakuri S, Cavanaugh JM, Clymer J, Amaral J

Received 6 September 2014

Accepted for publication 24 October 2014

Published 18 December 2014 Volume 2015:8 Pages 1—7


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Professor Cataldo Doria

Brian D Bertke,1 Patrick J Scoggins,1 Alissa L Welling,1 Tamara V Widenhouse,1 Chaoyang Chen,2 Srinivasu Kallakuri,2 John M Cavanaugh,2 Jeffrey W Clymer,1 Joseph F Amaral1

1Ethicon, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Spine Research Laboratory, Bioengineering Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Background: A new ultrasonic device, Harmonic Focus®+, has been developed that is smaller and delivers energy more efficiently than its predecessor via the inclusion of Adaptive Tissue Technology. This study was undertaken to compare its dissection capabilities to an advanced bipolar electrosurgery device in benchtop and preclinical evaluations.
Methods: In ex vivo testing, Focus+ and LigaSure™ Small Jaw were evaluated for physical dimensions, device and tissue temperature after repeated applications to porcine jejunum, and burst pressure of vessel seals, transection time, and tissue sticking in 3–5 mm porcine carotid arteries. In in vivo testing, the devices were tested on intact porcine carotid arteries for thermal damage via collagen denaturation and in muscle incisions near rat sciatic nerve for acute inflammation via hematoxylin and eosin and for impaired axonal transport via β-APP.
Results: Focus+ was smaller than the Small Jaw in width and height, yet it had a longer active blade and larger jaw aperture. Device temperatures were not different after application, but thermal spread (tissue temperature above 50°C) was 78% greater for Small Jaw (9.6 mm) than for Focus+ (5.4 mm). Burst pressures of sealed vessels were not significantly different between the devices: 900 (±466) mmHg for Focus+ versus 974 (±500) mmHg for Small Jaw. Small Jaw had a shorter individual transection time (5.0 seconds compared to 6.3 seconds for Focus+), whereas Focus+ had 70% less tissue sticking. Thermal damage, neural inflammation, and impaired axonal transport were all significantly lower for Focus+ compared to Small Jaw, by 19%, 57%, and 50%, respectively.
Conclusion: With the addition of Adaptive Tissue Technology, Harmonic Focus+ builds upon the manifold advantages of ultrasonic devices in procedures requiring meticulous dissecting capability. Improvements in energy sensing and controlled delivery produce lower tissue temperatures and less thermal damage, especially critical when working near nerves. Focus+ produces vessel seal strengths equivalent to advanced bipolar devices and, although individual device activations are longer, the reduction in tissue sticking is expected to materially lessen operative time in clinical practice.

Keywords: Harmonic, Focus, precision, vessel sealing, thyroidectomy, dissection

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]


Other articles by this author:

An in vivo comparison of the efficacy of hemostatic powders, using two porcine bleeding models

MacDonald MH, Wang AY, Clymer JW, Hutchinson RW, Kocharian R

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2017, 10:273-279

Published Date: 30 November 2017

Sealing vessels up to 7 mm in diameter solely with ultrasonic technology

Timm RW, Asher RM, Tellio KR, Welling AL, Clymer JW, Amaral JF

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2014, 7:263-271

Published Date: 30 July 2014

Tissue effects in vessel sealing and transection from an ultrasonic device with more intelligent control of energy delivery

Broughton D, Welling AL, Monroe EH, Pirozzi K, Schulte JB, Clymer JW

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2013, 6:151-154

Published Date: 16 September 2013

Comparison of two ultrasonic coagulating shears in sealing pulmonary vessels

Raghavan D, Howington JA, Broughton D, Henderson CE, Clymer JW

Open Access Surgery 2013, 6:15-21

Published Date: 21 March 2013

Readers of this article also read:

Perioperative management of facial bipartition surgery

Caruselli M, Tsapis M, Ughetto F, Pech-Gourg G, Galante D, Paut O

Open Access Surgery 2015, 8:85-87

Published Date: 6 November 2015

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010